Order Code 98-307
December 8, 2006
Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals
in the House of Representatives
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
The Speaker usually does not take the initiative to prevent the House from
considering proposals or taking actions that would violate the House’s rules.1 Instead,
whenever a Member believes that the House’s legislative procedures are being violated
in some way, or are about to be violated, that Member may insist that the House’s
procedures be enforced by making a point of order against the alleged violation.2 See
[http://www.crs.gov/products/guides/guidehome.shtml] for more information on
Points of Order. A Member who wishes to make a point of order must do so at
the appropriate time. For example, a point of order may be made against an amendment
only after it has been read (or designated, if it does not need to be read) but before debate
on the amendment has begun.4 Once a Member begins to explain an amendment that he
or she has offered, it is too late to make a point of order against the amendment.
Sometimes a Member will reserve a point of order, usually against an amendment,
which also allows other Members to later insist on the point of order; the Member need
not state the reason for reserving the point of order. Reserving a point of order defers
action on the point of order until after there has been some debate on the amendment. A
What is said here about the Speaker applies equally to any Member presiding over the House
as Speaker pro tempore and to any Member presiding as chairman of the Committee of the
Whole. The right to make points of order described herein for Members also equally applies to
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner.
Points of order against measures may be waived in the House by unanimous consent, a special
rule reported from the Rules Committee, or via suspension of the rules. See House Practice: A
Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, by Wm. Holmes Brown and
Charles W. Johnson (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 670.
This report was written by Stanley Bach, formerly a Senior Specialist in the Legislative Process
at CRS. The listed author has updated this report in the 109th Congress and is available to
respond to inquiries on the subject.
For additional information on appropriate timing for raising points of order in specific
circumstances (e.g., to enforce rules against appropriations on authorizing measures), see House
Practice, p. 49.
Member may reserve a point of order because he or she is not yet sure if a point of order
lies against the amendment, or because the Member wishes to give the sponsor of the
amendment an opportunity to explain it before the chair rules on the point of order. On
the demand for the “regular order,” however, the Member must either make his or her
point of order at that time or lose the opportunity to do so.
If a Member does make a point of order at the appropriate time, the Speaker gives
that Member an opportunity to explain precisely what rule or precedent is being violated,
and why. The Member whose action is in question then may respond to the point of
order. The Speaker may allow other Members to speak on the point of order; if the bill
manager concedes the point of order, the Speaker need not entertain debate before ruling.5
All debate on a point of order is at the discretion of the chair, and is only for the purpose
of advising the chair on the procedural issue that the point of order raises.
Rulings. It is the responsibility of the Speaker to rule on each point of order that
is made. The Speaker’s rulings are based on information and advice provided by the
House parliamentarian, and reflect the House’s voluminous published precedents that
document how Speakers ruled on similar questions in the past.6 In turn, each new ruling
by the Speaker becomes a precedent on which he and his successors may rely in the
future. The Speaker is not required to explain the reasons for his rulings, but he often
does so whenever the procedural question at issue is complex, difficult, or controversial.
If the Speaker sustains a point of order on consideration of a measure, it is recommitted
to either its previous place on the relevant calendar, or to the reporting committee. If a
point of order is raised and sustained against specific language in a measure, the language
is struck; sustained points of order against a portion of an amendment may invalidate the
Appeals. In most cases, any Member who disagrees with the Speaker’s ruling can
challenge it and ask Members to decide by majority vote whether the House will agree to
be bound by that ruling. Clause 5 of House Rule I states in part that the Speaker shall
“decide all questions of order, subject to appeal by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner.” Anyone wishing to invoke this right simply stands and announces,
before any other business has taken place, that he or she appeals the ruling of the Chair.
Most appeals are debatable under Rule I, but it is unusual for there to be much debate
on an appeal.8 Debate is under the 1-hour rule in the House and under the 5-minute rules
in the Committee of the Whole. However, the House can end the debate on an appeal by
voting to order the previous question (or by voting to close debate, if in Committee of the
House Practice, p. 669.
In addition, rulings on certain budget points of order require examination of estimates supplied
by the House Budget Committee, which monitors the compliance of measure with the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344). For more information on budget points of
order, see CRS Fact Sheet 98-876 GOV, Congressional Budget Act Points of Order, by Bill
House Practice, p. 663.
Quite often, a motion to table the appeal is offered; the ruling is sustained if the tabling motion
is adopted. House Practice, p. 68.
Whole). Alternately, a motion to table an appeal is in order in the House, but not in
Committee of the Whole. The Speaker puts the appeal to a vote by phrasing the question
in the following way: “The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the House [or the Committee]?” Those supporting the ruling vote “aye”;
those opposing it vote “nay.”
In the House of Representatives, appeals from rulings of the chair are quite
infrequent. In the 109th Congress, only eight appeals have been taken from rulings of the
chair on points of order and none have been overturned. In fact, none have been
overturned in a half century. At least two reasons account for the failure of the House to
overturn a ruling. First, the Speaker’s rulings are based on the Parliamentarian’s advice
which, in turn, is based on prior rulings on similar questions. Generally, the correctness
of rulings is not in doubt. Second, most members of the majority party can be expected
to support a ruling made by that party’s elected leader or another Member whom he has
designated to preside.
Points of order are to be distinguished from parliamentary inquiries. Parliamentary
inquiries are questions that Members pose to the Speaker about the current parliamentary
situation. The Speaker’s replies to these inquiries are explanatory; they are not rulings,
so they are not subject to appeal. 9 Further, some decisions of the chair are not subject to
appeal. For example, no Member can challenge the way in which the Speaker exercises
his discretionary power of recognition, nor can a Member appeal the Speaker’s ruling that
a proposed motion is not in order because it is dilatory. 10
For additional information, see House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents
and Procedures of the House, by Wm. Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson
(Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 48-50 (“Amendments”), pp. 65-69 (“Appeals”), pp. 661674 (“Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries”), and pp. 823-827 (“Rules and Precedents
of the House”). It is also available electronically at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
House Practice, p. 66.
See House Practice, pp. 66-67, for other examples of chair decisions not subject to appeal.